South Africa struggled on Monday to explain its vote in the UN Security Council to authorise air strikes against Libya at the same time as President Jacob Zuma called for an immediate ceasefire in Libya, reminding the world community that a UN resolution authorising the implementation of a no-fly zone above the strife-torn country was supposed to protect - not endanger - the lives of civilians.
In his speech to the Security Council on Thursday after casting his yes vote, Baso Sangqu, South Africa’s UN envoy, said Pretoria’s position was consistent with the AU’s “rejection of any foreign military intervention, whatever its form”. Yet the resolution authorised military intervention by urging nations to use “all necessary measures … to protect civilians”.
A South African official in New York said once the Security Council approved a foreign military intervention, it could no longer be called that. “If the decision is sanctioned by the Security Council, you can no longer call that foreign military occupation or unilateral military intervention,” the official said.
“South Africa said very strongly in our explanation of vote that this should not be used as a pretext for foreign military occupation or unilateral military intervention.”
The resolution expressly forbids a military occupation on any part of Libyan territory, but allows a no-fly zone and air strikes in defence of Libyan civilians.
The South African official denied a New York Times report that US ambassador Susan Rice had to leave the Security Council chamber to fetch Sangqu to ensure he voted. “This thing that we may not have wanted to vote, that Ambassador Rice left the room to look for Ambassador Sangqu, it is totally incorrect, totally untrue.
“We were the last ones in the room, but we were not late.”
The US mission in New York did not respond to a request for comment about the incident.
The Times reported that US President Barack Obama phoned Zuma in advance about South Africa’s vote. The official said that only Pretoria could answer questions about the call.
Asked whether Rice had lobbied Sangqu in New York for his vote, the official said: “They can lobby us until whatever, but ultimately South Africa takes its instructions from Pretoria. We will be lobbied, but South Africa will not vote on the basis of being lobbied.”
In Cape Town, Zuma called for “an immediate ceasefire in Libya and an end to attacks on civilians”.
Zuma said South Africa remained committed to the AU’s stance that any intervention should “respect the unity and territorial integrity of Libya”. He also underscored the South African government’s support for the regional body’s “rejection of any foreign intervention, whatever its form”.
“The UN Security Council Resolution should be implemented in letter and spirit by all members of the council. Operations aimed at enforcing the ‘no-fly zone’ and protecting civilians should be limited to just that. They should not harm or endanger the civilians that Resolution 1973 sought to protect,” he told a crowd of about 10 000 people.
“As South Africa, we say no to the killing of civilians, no to the regime change doctrine, and no to the foreign occupation of Libya or any other sovereign state.”
South Africa’s support for the no-fly zone has drawn the ire of the ANC Youth League, Young Communist League and UDM leader Bantu Holomisa, who said the government had been “duped into the politics of regime change and hypocrisy”.
Earlier, the youth league condemned South Africa’s support for the UN resolution.
The league accused Zuma’s government of having been fooled by the US into playing the role of “an imperialist weakest link” in Africa.
Holomisa said the government’s support for Resolution 1973 meant the country was now effectively on the side of the “rebels” in Libya – “long before the quest for a negotiated solution had begun”.
“This position is a smokescreen for regime change … It is this kind of hypocrisy that makes us cringe as a nation… The ANC government, which has been heavily funded by Gaddafi, owes the nation an explanation (about) whether our country is going to be used to achieve the nefarious objectives of certain powers,” he added. - Political Bureau